State of The ComicCon (from a distance): 2012
So while I was traveling (and when I say “traveling,” it means I was actually traveling), THB reg Luke Y Thompson, who will once again cover ComicCon for Deadline, referenced my annual “Why ComicCon is meaningless” screed.
I don’t actually think that ComicCon is meaningless. I think it is a good marketing opportunity to reach out to the core of the geek audience. What was “The Geek 8” years back is probably “The Geek 15” these days, referring to the amount they can deliver at the box office on an opening weekend. After that, you need to find other groups to show interest. And just because they are the core certainly doesn’t mean they are coming out for everything.
However…
They are going to show up for 98% or better of what is being sold in Hall H in San Diego. A “bad showing” by a big studio release is not death for a movie, at the box office or anywhere else. And conversely, a love fest should scare the shit out of studio execs who aren’t marketers, for fear that the marketing team will believe what is bouncing around that very large room.
The basics of ComicCon for the major studios have been the same for almost a decade now. A $500k spend at ComicCon to feed the base – including media, which as usual, has shown up in greater numbers as the event’s authenticity has waned – is just another media spend… an elaborate red carpet event with a desperately hungry audience for a specific niche. What has changed is that there is a tighter rein on marketing spends going on right now and some of those $50m domestic spends – of which ComicCon was a minor 1% and an even more minor amount spread across 3 or 4 titles spending 3 or 4 times that – are now (trying to be) $35m spends, making the cost of ComicCon a more serious consideration. (The biggest drain of ComicCon on studios, in my view, is actually the manpower drain, not the $s. The opportunity costs are not inconsequential… at least for movies that are already being actively marketed.)
Now, there is also the real question of whether ComicCon has ever sold a single movie ticket. And I say… well, maybe the media coverage is good for 1% of opening weekend on a movie or two, now and again, up to, say $1 million on a $100m movie. It’s not unreasonable to suggest that this measure is impossible, as media tone for months and months before a big opener is hard to measure in actual box office sales. Good will is also hard to measure in hard dollars. Any Twilight movie not showing up would be an insult. But is a single – yes, in this case, single – person going to buy or not buy a ticket to the last Twilight film based on ComicCon this year? No. Not a single ticket gained or lost. But for a studio like SummitsGate, relatively cheap, focused publicity is of greater value than to a major studio.
Matthew Vaughn has become the patron saint of claims that ComicCon can sell a movie. And Matthew (and his team) made the very smart choice to leverage Kick-Ass at The ‘Con in the process of selling the movie. And Lionsgate bought it… and will eventually break even on the overpriced buy because the movie is a legitimate perennial and has produced spin-off product and may produce sequels.
But the list of movies that seemed to earn wings at ComicCon only to be grounded by reality – of the limitations of The Geek 15 – is long… and most would include the theatrical release of Kick-Ass. The excuse is always that “for a movie like Serenity, that was a great number.” And indeed, maybe it was. But Universal didn’t make a $40m Firefly movie to gross $25m domestic and $39m worldwide. About double that – or half of what the first X-Files film, seen as a bit of a commercial disappointment – would have been the low-end of the hope. Let’s not even get started on Scott Pilgrim.
The biggest success that really launched at ComicCon was District 9. But the trip to The ‘Con was a well-timed, convenient, smart was to launch what was already a massive studio commercial push. But Tron Legacy and Avatar were really the big stories that year. Plus Johnny Depp showed up with Tim Burton or Alice in Wonderland too. But a high percentage of the District 9 ink was about Peter Jackson’s first ‘Con appearance.
Anyway…
The other side of this is that the “civilians” at ComicCon are in hog heaven. And none of my dismissals of the marketing value of the event have anything to do with mocking or denying that pleasure.
I do think that the event, long past the point of needing people lined up for days to prove its own value, needs to find a proper solution to the lines. My suggestion would be “Qs”… probably digitized Qs. The idea is that you get on line and at some point, you get these numbered pieces of paper. The event surely has stats on how big the lines get and when they get that way. So give out Qs – probably with digital sign-in by handheld device while in line, perhaps offering a gift in return for personal information that would be valuable to the marketers paying for/putting on the events – in groups of 500. Figure out how many get given out before opening day… how many on the ‘Con days before an event, etc. And lose the long lines more than a couple of hours before an event.
None of this would necessarily keep a tragedy like the one earlier this week – a woman being killed by a car after slipping in the street on her way to or from a Twilight line – but an event this mature and established should treat its guests better. Moreover, if they aren’t standing on line, maybe they are buying stuff on the ‘Con floor. But mostly, this is not Woodstock and there is nothing cool about a bunch of teens being forced to stand on lines for days to look at the hem of the garment. Accepting limits is something that comes with maturity and The ‘Con is an adult.
Anyway…
I guess ComicCon works as a preview instrument for the media… though there is almost nothing that will happen there that will not be on line officially within a couple of weeks or would not have been online officially now or even before ComicCon, were the marketers not holding out for The “Con.
Is there going to be much more of The Hobbit that the non-3D trailer that will go on the non-3D TDKR next week? Yeah. Peter. Some images. Some footage that won’t feel very connected. In other words, not really good marketing material. It’s all about that frickin’ trailer. And that’s not about however many people there are in San Diego, that’s about EVERYONE.
And that’s really my final point. The pleasant nugget in all of this is that ComicCon, if it survives its role as Marketer To The Geeks, is ready to go back to being what it once was… a joyous celebration where people of like minds in a very specific niche can go and share and hang out. I’d love that. I’d go to that.
ComicCon is a proven failure as a nationalized/internationalized marketing event for movies. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest that Mitt Romney might have had a great appearance at the NAACP event. (Ironically, I think Romney had to go, even if he was inevitably going to be booed, just as some films NEED to be at ComicCon at this point.) It is 100% marketing to the base. Yes, you get some nice photos from Entertainment Weekly… all of which you would get at some other point and will do all over again if you get a cover story.
And you do, with smaller films, have a real chance of alienating the base – or just boring them – and hurting your movie. As much as there is not a single major studio movie that has benefiting significantly from ComicCon, none has really been hurt either. Looking back over 10 years of comic book adaptations, I see Catwoman being released soon after The ‘Con… maybe they got negativity… don’t remember. But that movie was already the walking dead. And bringing this full circle, Luke Y. Thompson reported last year of Cowboys & Aliens, “Massive cheers at the end, though. Whatever the faults, the highlights seem to outweigh any misgivings in the fans’ minds.”
Like I said…
Love ComicCon for what it is, what it was, and what it can be. But don’t give me the bullshit lines that it matters. Fans get what the want. About 20 media outlets get very valuable content at the event. And like Cannes, Sundance, and Toronto, the buzz is lovely, but when push comes to shove, marketers have to market their movies regardless of these festivals and that marketing, not the buzz, will control the success or failure of the projects at hand.
Just the other day wasn’t it Luke who noted that Dredd played extremely well with ComicCon viewers but would have a hard time appealing to anyone else? I know it was an online critic. And I have to believe that Kick Ass would have opened to about the same number without a major ComicCon presence. The people psyched for it didn’t need to see a ComicCon panel to decide it was a must-see. The people attending ComicCon and reading coverage of it are already fully aware of the movies with a CC presence. It doesn’t seem like CC is generating any awareness that didn’t already exist.
Serenity was TERRIBLY marketed. Every preview or ad mentioned that it was based on the television series. You know, the one that no one watched. So why go see this, either.
In 2006, from what I hear the “Snakes on a Plane” presence at Con was pretty massive. Sure didn’t help that p.o.s.
I agree with DP, marginal-marginal boost at best for box office. This is really just a consumer festival for a targeted audience, but there’s no real impact.
RIP Dick Zanuck.
It’s a huge junket where bloggers gain site hits for regurgitating what they’ve been allowed to see and studios gain good will by giving bloggers access which is like the juice they crave to keep on living. No thanks.
To be honest, I’ve been a few times and had fun. There’s a cool party vibe. But that was like, 8-10 years ago. Now it’s all about letting geeks get close to their idol du jour in exchange for revenue or positive buzz. Just as nothings ever been sold out of comic-con, nothings ever been pronounced DOA either which begs the point: “what’s the point?”
very much agree with what Paul said. Comic Con is where you lionize the base.
Dredd is the perfect SDCC property because it is dependent on the geek crowd showing up and getting behind it if it has any hopes of the $50 million U.S. gross they’re hoping for.
So good press from SDCC will help something like Dredd. There’s so many projects that will have no benefit from an SDCC presence. Last year when i attended there were two ‘buzz’ films around the con: Cowboys & Aliens and Attack the Block. Did either of those really hugely benefit from an SDCC presence.
SDCC is a lot like E3. There is no benefit to being there other than missed opportunities for people to overhype youre already hyped project.
With that said, i could give two fucks about all the wasted money. Because all that wasted money keeps the small comic book panels funded and provides a fantastic independent comic experience. Let the studios keep that engine running.
Shocked….SHOCKED I tell ya! Rian Johnson’s LOOPER is being raved about by the bloggeratti at Comic-Con who he wisely tweets at them and lets them see his movies early in order to keep them in his pocket. I know 3-4 of the big geek bloggeratti who’ve already seen it. The CON keeps on rockin’ as planned.
I dig Johnson’s films (BROTHERS BLOOM was underrated and misunderstood) but when the bloggers go crazy, it’s box office kiss of death. Welcome to the KICK-ASS/SCOTT PILGRIM club.
You can’t lump Kick-Ass with SP, because Kick-Ass made a shit load of money on video. It generated enough money on video, that it’s getting a sequel. It succeeded… in a way.
That aside, Looper jumped the shark for me, with that last trailer. Did anyone else hear JGL going on about killing his future self, and just roll your eyes? Hold on, mine are still rolling by a premise that involves… DISPOSING BODIES IN THE PAST!
All I can say about having covered Hall H as a journalist is that doing movie coverage at Comic-Con is hilariously difficult. Very few power outlets (and when you do plug in, half the time they kick you back to your seats because of some obscure fire marshall fiat), cell coverage is almost nonexistent (at least on AT&T), and it’s effectively impossible to get on any kind of wifi. Even with a MiFi, it’s still a difficult proposition to get anything done in there.
i stopped covering comic-con in its entirety a while back…i’m afraid i aged out and just found it exhausting…that said, i still get down there (on somebody’s coat-tails) and catch a panel/check out the floor…and, the round-trip train ride is kindle-fire friendly and pretty pro-social…..there’s lots to complain about but i really think poland got it right with “Love ComicCon for what it is, what it was, and what it can be”…i would definitely miss it if it were gone….
“Just the other day wasn’t it Luke who noted that Dredd played extremely well with ComicCon viewers but would have a hard time appealing to anyone else?”
Hard time? Who doesn’t love Sly Stallone? Rob Schneider, though, does tend to play to the geek fanbase. (Please tell me they announced Deuce Bigalow 3!)
“Just the other day wasn’t it Luke who noted that Dredd played extremely well with ComicCon viewers but would have a hard time appealing to anyone else?”
Yep.
“And I have to believe that Kick Ass would have opened to about the same number without a major ComicCon presence.”
Nope. It was undistributed before coming to Comic-Con. The positive response helped it get sold. Had it come to the Con already bought by Lionsgate, you’d have a better case.
There’s also a distinction to be made between movies that show clips and a panel versus movies that are shown in their entirety. Giving away a movie for free to the only group who would pay full price is always dangerous. Pays off if you’re really obscure like Bellflower; less so if you show Scott Pilgrim five times over the weekend.
Also – I realize linking to Deadline probably won’t happen here, but those who read the actual articles I wrote on the topic may find them more nuanced than expected. Or not.
Is this the best link, Luke? HERE.
Best deadline link is pretty cool guy and doesn’t afraid of anything
Luke… we have no policy about not linking to Deadline. We do it all the time.
And do note that Kick-Ass used ComicCon to raise its price. It was already seen by the studios when the event happened in SD.
Also, the box office cost of those Scott Pilgrim screenings – assuming they kept anyone from buying a ticket on release day – was under $200,000. Meaningless to a studio release. That was not the problem.
Yeah the buzz might have raised the price, but wouldn’t Kick-Ass have sold without CC? I find it hard to believe that it goes unsold without CC.
Eh, kinda smacks to me of those Sundance (or Toronto) acquisitions that appear to be made at the fest but have really been in place all along.
All due to credit to JS.
He called Winter Soldier during the first Cap’s release.
I thought they’d wait another film, at least, but I guess Avengers was the second Cap film, per say.
yes, credit js and the 8 million other people online who screamed WINTER SOLDIER the minute they saw Bucky fall into an icy ravine.
It’s not exactly rocket science, especially if you read the comics. The thing Marvel is doing right now that is so surprising is that they are taking stories straight from the comics without the kind of wild re-interpretations and liberties that had been taken with the properties in the past. They’re mashing stories together but they’re really doing straight up adaptations using the comics as the structural outline. Iron Man 3 is Extremeis + Mandarin. Captain America 2 is Winter Soldier, which makes sense because he’s the dark reflection of Cap, and ill bet Guardians of the Galaxy follows the Thanos storyline currently running and/or Infinity Gauntlet leading to Avengers 2.
I don’t know about GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY…I mean cmon, Rocket the Raccoon in a live action film? Groot? I get that they’re trying to set up Thanos, but I can’t see this in a million years working…maybe if it’s partly motion-capture but that still seems risky.
Couldn’t they be a bit further along with ANT-MAN? Even DR STRANGE would have been a smarter idea…